Dwagginz Considers "Medal Of Honor (2010)"

Now, I'm really not one to buy into hype and controversy, but the air surrounding EA's upcoming Medal of Honor game is really starting to bug me.

For those who don't know, Medal of Honor is a series of war games set in historically accurate settings. Since the first game back on the Playstation, the series has snaked across various parts of World War 2 and its associated conflicts - It's had a title set in the Pacific, a recreation of the D-Day landings and so forth. EA decided to reinvent the series and their first port of call is the war in Afghanistan. Yes, the current one. That isn't where the controversy lies, though.

As has been common with the Medal of Honor games (and the various "clones" such as Activision's Call of Duty series), there's a multiplayer element to it. In most of the previous games, if not all of them, you effectively had Allied vs Axis. This time around, it's US vs Taliban. In the multiplayer mode (I cannot stress that enough), one side is the US and the other is the Taliban. There's no single player campaign allowing you to play as the Taliban forces. That "option" (if you can call it that) is limited to multiplayer.

It's not like EA have gone into this with a sledgehammer, and one of the major selling points of the Medal of Honor franchise is its historical accuracy. The locations, the weaponry, the tactics - It's as close to historically accurate as you'll get, really. They've stated many times that they work, and have worked with, serving soldiers in the armies and societies such as the Congressional Medal of Honor Society (I believe that's their name) so they've had guidance and experienced people all through the development.

One thing I've heard is related to kids playing it - They shouldn't be playing it. In the UK, I believe it's been given (or is going to be given) an 18 rating - i.e. the only way a child is going to get it is if the parent supplies it to them. If a child is playing it and takes something from it (such as support of the Taliban), then blame the parent and not the game.

This war has been tackled by film, book, television and every other medium under the sun. Why is it so unacceptable for a game to have the Taliban as a playable side? They're not glorifying what goes on in a war, they're not supporting the Taliban. They're keeping it authentic and based in historical fact - And that's what the series is about.

I'm not against what EA are doing, I think I've made that clear, but you can't decry a product for being historically accurate and factual. If you don't agree with what EA are doing, then don't play the game. Don't give it any of your time. Don't buy it for a family member. Vote with your money.